Nick, When you suggested a hurricane as an example of a complex system I replied that a hurricane is interesting because it's a non-biological system (and not a human artifact) that uses energy that it extracts from outside itself to maintain its structure. That's an interesting and important characteristic. Biological systems do that also, Maturana & Varela, but I don't see that as sufficient to grant it the quality of being a complex system.
-- Russ On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 9:06 PM Nick Thompson <nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote: > Thanks, Glen, > > > > Larding below: > > > > Nick > > > > Nicholas S. Thompson > > Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology > > Clark University > > http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of ?glen? > Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2017 11:34 AM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com> > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Any non-biological complex systems? > > > > Although you're repeating what I'd said earlier about relying on a more > vernacular sense of "complex", we have to admit something you've yet to > acknowledge. > > *[NST==>I missed this, and going back through the thread, I have not found > it. Can you reproduce it for me without too much strain? <==nst] * > > (I realize that the things I've said in this thread have been mostly > ignorable. So, it's reasonable that they've been missed.) First, circular > reasoning is used all the time in math. > > *[NST==>I am not talking about tautology, here: x is x. I am talking > about circular explanation: x is the cause of x. Surely you would agree > that having defined X as whatever is caused by Y, I have not added much to > our store of knowledge concerning what sorts of things Y causes. But you > are correct, not all circular explanations are entirely vicious/vacuous, of > course. It depends on the assumptions the discussants bring to the table. > See, > https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281410347_Comparative_psychology_and_the_recursive_structure_of_filter_explanations<==nst > <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281410347_Comparative_psychology_and_the_recursive_structure_of_filter_explanations%3c==nst>]* > > So, it is not the bug-a-boo logicians claim it to be. Again, Maturana & > Varela, Rosen, Kaufmann, et al have all used it to valid and sound effect. > > *[NST==>I would be grateful for a passage from any of these folks where > strictly circular reasoning is used to good effect. <==nst] * > > > > Second, your "interact more closely with one another than they do with > entities outside the set" is nothing but _closure_. > > *[NST==>Well, if that is how one defines closure, then I am bound to > agree. Then, it’s not clear to me what the function of “nothing but” is, > in your sentence. But reading through your earlier posts (petri dish) > suggests that for you closure is absolute; for me, systematicity is a > variable and we would have to have some sort of a mutual understanding of > where along that dimension we start calling something a system. <==nst] * > > Or if I can infer from the lack of response to my broaching the term, we > could use "coherence" or some other word. > > *[NST==>Yes, but coherence, for me, carries more richness than what I was > grasping for. For you, perhaps not. I guess “coherence” is ok. <==nst] * > > And that means that your working definition is not naive. > > *[NST==>Huh? You mean I don’t get to be in charge of whether I am naïve, > or not? Are you some kind of behaviorist? <==nst] * > > It does rely on an intuition that many of us share. > > *[NST==>Bollox! It relies on the plain meaning of the word (he said > grumpily). <==nst] * > > But in order for you to know what you're talking about, you have to > apply a bit more formality to that concept. > > *[NST==>This thread isn’t coherent for me. Somebody asks if natural > systems can be complex. This is a lot of intricate talk which I frankly > didn’t follow but which seemed to suggest that only symbol systems could be > complex. But I could detect no definition of complexity to warrant that > restriction. So I offered a definition of complexity (which may have been > the same as yours – forgive me), offered an example of a natural complex > system, a hurricane, and came to the conclusion that indeed, some natural > systems are complex. To my knowledge, nobody has addressed that claim. > But I have been traveling, my eye sight sucks, and I may have missed it. > If anybody has addressed this claim, could somebody direct me to a copy of > their post. I would be grateful. <==nst] * > > > > *Perhaps Steve Smith, who has often rescued me when I have made these > messes in the past, could gently point out to me my error. * > > > > *Top temperature today 49 degrees. 90’s predicted for next week. I am > ready. * > > > > *Best to you all, * > > > > *Nick * > > > > > > > > > > > > On 06/06/2017 07:20 AM, Nick Thompson wrote: > > > Dear Eric and Steve, and the gang, > > > > > > > > > > > > When I first moved to Santa Fe on Sabbatical 12 years ago, I was merely > 67, and there was a chance, just a chance, that I might become expert > enough in complexity science and model programming to deal with you guys > on a somewhat equal footing. But that never happened, and, now, it is too > late. I am amazed by the intricacy of your discussion and the broad reach > of your thought. There is really little more than I can do then wish you > all well, and back out of the conversation with my head bowed and my hat > clasped to my chest. > > > > > > > > > > > > Before I leave this conversation, I would like to offer the dubious > benefits of what expertise I do have, which concerns the perils of circular > reasoning. I come by that expertise honestly, through years of struggling > with the odd paradox of evolutionary biology and psychology, that neither > field seems every to quite get on with the business of explaining the > design of things. When George Williams famously defined adaptation as > whatever natural selection produces he forever foreclosed to himself and > his legions of followers, the possibility of saying what sort of a world an > adapted world is, what the products of natural selection are like. One of > you has pointed out that this is an old hobby horse with me, and suggested, > perhaps, that it's time to drag the old nag to the glue factory. But I > intend to give it one last outing. > > > > > > > > > > > > So, I have a question for you all: Do you guys know what you are > talking about?! Now I DON’T mean that how it sounds. I don’t mean to > question your deep knowledge of the technology and theory of complexity. > Hardly. What I do mean to ask is if, perhaps, you may sometimes lose > sight of the phenomenon you are trying to explain, the mystery you hope to > solve. Natural selection theory became so sophisticated, well-developed > and intricate that its practitioners lost track of the phenomenon they were > trying to account for, the mystery they were trying to solve. We never > developed a descriptive mathematics of design to complement our elaborate > explanatory mathematics of natural selection. Until we have such a > descriptive system, natural selection theory is just a series of ad hoc > inventions, not a theory subject to falsification but “a metaphysical > research program” as Popper once famously said, which can always be > rejiggered to be correct. Is there a risk of an analogous problem in > complexity science? You will have to say. > > > > > > > > > > > > So, I will ask the question again: Do you guys know what you are > talking about?! What is complexity?? If the answer you give is in terms > of the deeply technical, causal language of your field, there is a danger > that you have lost sight of what it is you are trying to account for. And > here a little bit of naivety could be very helpful. Naivety is all I have > to offer, I will offer it. Whatever complexity might be, it is the > opposite of simplicity, no? It is in that spirit that I propose a working > definition of complexity with which to explore this thread’s question: > “Are any non-biological systems complex?” > > > > > > > > > > > > An object is any collection or entity designated for the purposes of > conversation. > > > > > > > > > > > > A system is a set of objects that interact more closely with one another > than they do with entities outside the set. > > > > > > > > > > > > A system is complex if the objects that compose it are themselves > systems. > > > > > > > > > > > > Only when complex systems have been clearly defined, is it rational to > ask the question, “Are any natural systems complex?” Now you may not like > my definition, but I think you will agree that once it is accepted, the > answer to the question is clearly, “Yes!” > > > > > > > > > > > > Take hurricanes. Is a hurricane composed of > thunderstorms? Clearly, Yes. Are thunderstorms themselves systems. This > is a bit less clear, because the boundaries among thunderstorms in a > hurricane may be a bit hazy, but if one thinks of a thunderstorm as a > convective cell -- a column of rising air and its related low level inflow > and high level outflow – then a thunderstorm is definitely a system, and a > hurricanes are made up of them. Hurricanes may also display an > intermediate system-level, a spiral band, which consists of a system of > thunderstorms spiraling in toward the hurricane’s center. Thus, a > hurricane could easily be shown to be a three-level complex system. > > > > > > > > > > > > Notice that this way preceding saves all the intricate explanatory > apparatus of complexity theory for the job of accounting for how hurricanes > come about. Now we can ask the question, What kinds of energy flows (insert > correct terminology, here) occur in all complex systems? Notice also, > that this procedure prevents any of us from importing his favorite > explanation for complex systems into their definition, guaranteeing the > truth of the explanation no matter what the facts might be, and rendering > the theory vacuous. . > > > > > > > > > > > > One last comment. When I wrote that perhaps we might inquire of the > system whether it is complex or not, I left myself wide open to be > misunderstood. I meant only to say, that it is the properties of the > system, itself, not its causes, that should determine the answer to the > question. Remember that, in all matters, I am a behaviorist. If I would > distrust your answer concerning whether you are hungry or not, I certainly > would not trust a systems answer concerning whether it is complex or not. > > > > -- > > ␦glen? > > ============================================================ > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe > http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
